Electroweak baryogenesis in<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math>-symmetric supersymmetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We demonstrate that electroweak baryogenesis can occur in a supersymmetric model with an exact $R$-symmetry. The minimal $R$-symmetric supersymmetric model contains chiral superfields in the adjoint representation, giving Dirac gaugino masses, and an additional set of ``$R$-partner'' Higgs superfields, giving $R$-symmetric $\ensuremath{\mu}$ terms. New superpotential couplings between the adjoints and the Higgs fields can simultaneously increase the strength of the electroweak phase transition and provide additional tree-level contributions to the lightest Higgs mass. Notably, no light stop is present in this framework, and in fact, we require both stops to be above a few TeV to provide sufficient radiative corrections to the lightest Higgs mass to bring it up to 125 GeV. Large CP-violating phases in the gaugino/Higgsino sector allow us to match the baryon asymmetry of the Universe with no constraints from electric dipole moments owing to $R$ symmetry. We briefly discuss some of the more interesting phenomenology, particularly of the lightest CP-odd scalar.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".